Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal versus vaginal prolapse surgery with mesh
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Ginath, S., Garely, A.D., Luchs, J.S. et al. Int Urogynecol J (2012) 23: 1569. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1783-2
- 287 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
We compared two surgical approaches in patients with symptomatic prolapse of the vaginal apex with normal controls by analyzing pelvic landmark relationships measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before and after surgery.
In this prospective multicenter pilot study involving 16 participants, nulliparous controls (n = 6) were compared with ten parous (3.0 ± 1.0) women with uterine apical prolapse equal to or greater than stage 2. Group A (n = 5) underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy with monofilament polypropylene mesh and group B (n = 5) with vaginal mesh kit repair (Total ProLift). Subtotal hysterectomy was performed in all group A and no group B women. All patients underwent preoperative and 3-month postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and dynamic MRI. Comparison of MRI pelvic angles and distances was performed and analyzed by Mann–Whitney rank sum test and chi-square test.
Vaginal apical support is similar at 3 months for abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASCP) and ProLift by POP-Q examination and MRI analysis. In both treatment groups, the postoperative POP-Q point C and MRI parameters were similar to nulliparous controls at 3 months.
Anatomic outcomes for ASCP compared with ProLift were similar at 3 months in terms of vaginal apical support by POP-Q and MRI analysis. Continued comparative analysis of postoperative support with objective imaging seems warranted.
KeywordsAbdominal sacral colpopexy Monofilament polypropylene mesh ProLift Pelvic organ prolapse Magnetic resonance imaging
Pelvic organ prolapse
Abdominal sacral colpopexy
Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy
Magnetic resonance imaging
Monofilament polypropylene mesh
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification